The Ashes First Test Lords Sunday 24th July..Day 4.

[Collyisamackem]

A few points:

I'm gutted, but I've realised that we will not win the ashes and as long as we compete all the way and improve through the series I'll settle for that.

Vaughan's form is worrying me now.

I wouldn't go for the knee-jerk action that the Geraint-bashers have been waiting for in dropping him, because the whole side couldn't catch.

After the ashes we should maybe take on Merv's advice and play an extra batsman - Joyce is clearly a candidate there. Until then I think we should play a settled side.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Quite a bit of work for England to do over the next ten days or so, it seems.

Really? I don't see that. England performed at about the highest level they've achieved in many, many years.... and it wasn't good enough. End of story (and no need for criticism).

I cannot believe that anyone's upset about this England performance. It's been no worse than any England performance over the past 12-18 months... and few were complaining then: why complain now? Sure, against lesser teams this side could show it's current failings and still win... but not ONE thing about this England performance came as a great shock... and the same positives were there as vs. SL / WI / NZ / SA.

It's all part of a long-term learning process: most of the England players are at least 2-4 years short on experience for this type of contest... and almost all are well short of their peak - they're basically a bunch of schoolboys up against seasoned pros.. and they're being taught a few (hopefully useful) lessons.

Let's just hope England can make the next Test last at least as long as this one lasted. :-)

[Collyisamackem]

Rachael - I think there were two differences:

- Fielding. We took our catches in the other games.
- Bowling. When confronted with quality spin we couldn't pick it, and we can't deal with any degree of consistent line-and-length bowling.

[R W S]

Anybody else feel Strauss should have stood his ground yesterday and asked the 3rd umpire to check if Lee had grassed that catch? It looked dubious enough to me.

[Trescothick]

Originally Posted by R W S

Anybody else feel Strauss should have stood his ground yesterday and asked the 3rd umpire to check if Lee had grassed that catch? It looked dubious enough to me.

His stroke was embarssing enough to have to dwell on whether it was a catch or not. He deserved to be caught so I think correct decision. He was playing so well up until then, under tremendous pressure but had a lapse for that shot.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Rachael

It's all part of a long-term learning process: most of the England players are at least 2-4 years short on experience for this type of contest... and almost all are well short of their peak - they're basically a bunch of schoolboys up against seasoned pros.. and they're being taught a few (hopefully useful) lessons.

The theory was that lack of experience against Australia would be to their advantage because they wouldn't be carrying any pschological scars. The result of this match proved that just isn't enough against this seasoned Australian side. Now that the experiment has failed common sense needs to return by bringing back some experience into the team. Preferably a safe catcher.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by R W S

Anybody else feel Strauss should have stood his ground yesterday and asked the 3rd umpire to check if Lee had grassed that catch? It looked dubious enough to me.

Yeah. To me it looked as if the ball was sliding along the ground while it was in Lee's hand.

[Aussie-Yank]

As did other dismisalls of Australian batsmen and English batsman who where out but where not give. That is the nature of the game. The umpire will make mistakes - no doubt about it - but keep out of the game players questioning the umpires decision on the field.

[Cricket Girl]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Really? I don't see that. England performed at about the highest level they've achieved in many, many years.... and it wasn't good enough. End of story (and no need for criticism).

I cannot believe that anyone's upset about this England performance. It's been no worse than any England performance over the past 12-18 months... and few were complaining then: why complain now? Sure, against lesser teams this side could show it's current failings and still win... but not ONE thing about this England performance came as a great shock... and the same positives were there as vs. SL / WI / NZ / SA.

It's all part of a long-term learning process: most of the England players are at least 2-4 years short on experience for this type of contest... and almost all are well short of their peak - they're basically a bunch of schoolboys up against seasoned pros.. and they're being taught a few (hopefully useful) lessons.

Let's just hope England can make the next Test last at least as long as this one lasted. :-)

In past matches we had Graham Thorpe - and back in the West Indies, Nasser Hussain and Mark Butcher - digging us out of holes. That's why I'm upset.

Also, as someone else said, the fielding wasn't up to it. When was the last time Flintoff dropped a catch?

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by R W S

Anybody else feel Strauss should have stood his ground yesterday and asked the 3rd umpire to check if Lee had grassed that catch? It looked dubious enough to me.

Why??

He should accept the umps decision.

Just a few weeks ago, we saw Geraint Jones claim a wicket that never was against Bangladesh and I remember people saying it was distasteful that the batsman was asking the umpires for the 3rd umpire.